DOCSLIB.ORG

Consultation on Proposals for Long-Term Capital Investment in Science & Research

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Consultation on Proposals for Long-Term Capital Investment in Science & Research Creating the Future: A 2020 Vision for Science and Research - Consultation on Proposals for Long-Term Capital Investment in Science & Research Submission from the Russell Group 1. Summary • The UK’s position as a world-leader in research, and the benefits that flow from this for the economy and society, will only be maintained if our research- intensive universities have the facilities and equipment needed to compete internationally. • The commitment to increase funding for capital investment and maintain this at around £1.1 billion per year in real terms to 2020-21 is very welcome. • We recommend that the majority of funding be allocated at the institution and research project level as opposed to large-scale projects, and that funding allocated directly to institutions is at least equal to that allocated to research projects through the Research Councils. (Scenario 1 in the consultation document.) • Capital investment for science and research should be allocated to research- intensive universities and their institutes where there is a critical mass of research excellence. Extending capital investment to research and technology organisations and independent research organisations runs the risk of duplicating existing facilities and equipment rather than building on the UK’s research strengths within our universities’ centres of excellence. • The provision of capital funding directly to HEIs by a formula mechanism is extremely valuable as it provides the autonomy and certainty to invest in areas of scientific opportunity identified by our world-leading researchers. The formula approach is also highly efficient as a funding mechanism, compared to costly and time consuming bidding processes. • A clear commitment from the Government is needed to support the on-going resource costs associated with operating, maintaining and up-grading capital facilities. A resource element separate from project resource should be tied to capital investment to ensure facilities and equipment can operate to full capacity, and to enable vital upgrades and maintenance to ensure the continued competitiveness of facilities in the long-term. • We welcome the intention to formulate a strategy in relation to the UK’s priorities for investment in major national and international projects. In order to choose between priorities identified in the initial round, we recommend further in-depth consultation with key academic research leaders to make a final recommendation on large-scale project funding to Government. The Russell Group of Universities www.russellgroup.ac.uk • A proportion of the capital funding budget should remain ring fenced for the future to ensure flexibility to invest in strategic priorities which may not become apparent for years to come. At such time as the Government wishes to allocate the remainder, we strongly recommend that a full consultation be undertaken with the research community to identify strategic priorities for investment. • The Research Partnership Investment Fund (RPIF) for capital co-investment in university research facilities has been very successful in leveraging funding for capital investment and we would recommend that this be turned into a longer- term, more strategic initiative for the future. • The majority of research undertaken in the UK relies upon access to small- and medium-scale research infrastructure, much of which is located within leading research-intensive universities. Provision for infrastructure on this scale must be at the heart of the Government’s capital investment strategy including through RPIF and as part of Research Council grants. • Russell Group universities remain committed to increasing productivity and driving efficiency through collaboration with other UK universities and industry through research partnerships to share key scientific facilities and equipment. We urge Government to consider how VAT legislation and guidance can be simplified to avoid hindering collaboration between universities in equipment sharing and other similar activities. 2. Introduction 2.1 The purpose of The Russell Group is to provide strategic direction, policy development and communications for 24 major research-intensive universities in the UK; we aim to ensure that policy development in a wide range of issues relating to higher education is underpinned by a robust evidence base and a commitment to civic responsibility, improving life chances, raising aspirations and contributing to economic prosperity and innovation. 2.2 We welcome this opportunity to contribute to the Government’s consultation on proposals for long-term capital investment in science and research, which we understand will feed into the Government’s wider Science and Innovation Strategy. The UK’s research community, and especially research-intensive universities, are best placed to identify strategic priorities for science and innovation. Russell Group universities undertake the majority of the very best world-leading research carried out in the UK and are highly effective and successful in the commercial exploitation of their research, forming strategic relationships with a range of businesses, international partners and third sector institutions. 2.3 In 2012-13, Russell Group universities accounted for: • 74% (over £3.5 billion) of UK universities’ research grant and contract income • 75% (over £1.1 billion) of total income from the Research Councils • 76% (over £0.8 billion) of funding for contract research with businesses • 82% (over £0.8 billion) of funding for research from UK charities • 77% (over £0.2 billion) of total income from international (non-EU) research grants and contracts1 1 Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) data 2012-13 2 3. The case for capital investment into research and science 3.1 The UK’s universities lead the world in producing excellent research: • Whilst the UK represents 4% of researchers globally, we produce 16% of the world's most highly-cited articles and rank first in the world by field-weighted citation impact.2 3.2 The UK’s world-leading position is founded upon a critical mass of research excellence, particularly within our research-intensive universities. Russell Group universities produce an extremely high level of world-leading research - at least two thirds of world-leading research originating from all UK universities.3 3.3 Long-term curiosity-driven research undertaken at our universities often delivers significant economic and societal benefits; it endows businesses with competitive advantage, brings new consumer products to market, creates numerous job opportunities, as well as providing better health care, cleaner and more efficient energy sources, improvements to ‘quality of life’ and much wider cultural benefits. Numerous examples of this can be found in our publications on the significant economic and social impacts of research conducted at Russell Group universities.4 3.4 The maintenance of the highest standards of equipment and facilities at our leading universities helps to sustain our world-class research environment, attracting highly sought-after internationally-mobile researchers as well as high levels of international R&D investment: • The proportion of non-UK nationality academic staff is around 34% at Russell Group universities compared to an average of 20% for other UK HEIs.5 • The UK’s world-class universities are vital to attracting high levels of foreign R&D: between 2000 and 2011, the most consistent growth in overseas- financed R&D has been in the HE sector, with an average annual increase of nearly 9% over the period.6 • Nearly 20% of gross expenditure on R&D conducted in the UK is now financed from abroad (compared to around 4% in Germany and the US) reflecting the quality of the UK science base in being able to attract inward investment7. 3.5 R&D-intensive businesses place high importance on access to state-of-the-art research facilities and equipment in deciding to undertake collaborative research with a university, use university facilities for contract research, or co-locate business operations. For example, pharmaceutical firms are found to locate their R&D near to world-class rated chemistry departments in UK universities, with the location decision 2 ‘International Comparative Performance of the UK Research Base – 2013: A report prepared by Elsevier for BIS’ 3 Research Assessment Exercise 2008 (for the 24 universities that are now Russell Group members) 4 See: http://www.russellgroup.ac.uk/uploads/RG_ImpactOfResearch2.pdf and http://russellgroup.org/SocialImpactOfResearch.pdf 5 HESA, 2012-13 6 BIS, ‘Innovation Report 2014: Innovation, Research And Growth’ 7 OECD Main Science and Technology Indicators, 2013 (GERD financed from abroad) 3 also related to the presence of science parks.8 In doing so, they are able to tap into the university’s ecosystem, including access to leading-edge academic and industry networks, cutting-edge equipment and facilities, scientific talent and valuable partnering opportunities. 3.6 Access to publicly funded scientific infrastructure is particularly beneficial to SMEs otherwise unable to fund capital investment in the latest equipment.9 Russell Group universities offer SMEs access to new equipment and facilities, and provide training in new technologies in fields such as additive manufacturing. 3.7 Crucial national research infrastructure is located at many Russell Group universities alongside small- and medium-scale research infrastructure which is vital to attracting leading researchers and businesses. Much of the cutting-edge research
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Landscape Analysis
    The UK’s research and innovation infrastructure: Landscape Analysis 3 Contents Executive summary 6 Chapter 1: Introduction 8 1.1 Scope and definition of research and innovation infrastructure 9 1.2 Infrastructure diversity 10 1.3 Scale and coverage 11 1.4 Questionnaire methodology, limitations and potential bias 13 Chapter 2: Overview of the landscape 15 2.1 The cross-disciplinary nature of infrastructures 17 2.2 Large scale multi-sector facilities 18 Chapter 3: Lifecycle 21 3.1 Concept 22 3.2 Current lifecycle landscape 23 3.3 Evolution of the landscape 26 3.4 Lifecycle and planning 26 Chapter 4: International collaboration and cooperation 28 4.1 International collaboration 29 4.2. Staffing 29 4.3 International user base 30 Chapter 5: Skills and staffing 32 5.1 Numbers 33 5.2 Roles 36 5.3 Staff diversity 36 Chapter 6: Operations 38 6.1 Set-up capital costs 39 6.2 Sources of funding 41 6.3 Primary funding source 42 Chapter 7: Measuring usage and capacity 43 7.1 Usage 44 7.2 Measuring capacity 45 7.3 Managing capacity 47 7.4 Barriers to performance 49 Chapter 8: Links to the economy 52 8.1 Working with businesses 53 Chapter 9: Biological sciences, health and food sector 56 9.1 Current landscape 57 9.2 Interdependency with e-infrastructure 63 9.3 Engagement with the wider economy 63 4 Chapter 10: Physical sciences and engineering sector 65 10.1 The current landscape 67 10.2 Characterising the sector 69 10.3 The importance of international collaboration 71 10.4 Impacts 71 Chapter 11: Social sciences, arts and humanities sector 73 11.1 Form
    [Show full text]
  • Read the Newcastle University Economic Impact Report
    ECONOMIC IMPACT REPORT Our economic impact Engagement Our and partnerships Students International Knowledge profile economy Business Research and engagement innovation Excellence with a Purpose CONTENTS Overview 1 Foreword 2 Our economic impact 5 Our students 6 Knowledge economy 8 Research and innovation 9 Business engagement 10 International profile 12 Engagement and partnerships 14 Case studies: 1: Rural sustainability 16 2: City futures 17 3: Employer engagement 18 4: Partnering with business 19 5: Showcasing creativity 20 The Economic Impact 1 of Newcastle University OVERVIEW Newcastle University was formally established in 1963, but can trace its roots to the School of Medicine and Surgery, which was founded in Newcastle upon Tyne in 1834. Today’s University is a thriving international community of 27,750 students and 5,780 staff, the majority of whom are based on our main city-centre campus and other sites around the city. In recent years, we have expanded our footprint to include two international campuses, in Malaysia and Singapore, which opened in 2011 and 2008 respectively, while our newest branch campus, Newcastle University London, opened in September 2015. The University is a member of the internationally renowned Russell Group, an association of 24 leading research-intensive universities in the UK, and of the N8 Research Partnership, which features the eight research-intensive universities in the North of England. We are ranked among the top 1% of world universities, according to the QS (Quacquarelli Symonds) World Rankings. In 2016, Newcastle became one of only 16 universities in the world, and one of two in the UK, to achieve Five Plus QS Stars in the first international assessment of its kind.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 N8/Yorkshire Universities Joint Response to David
    N8/YORKSHIRE UNIVERSITIES JOINT RESPONSE TO DAVID SWEENEY The N8 Research Partnership and Yorkshire Universities (YU) together represent 17 higher education institutions (HEIs) in the north of England. Our members make major contributions towards the UK’s research and innovation base. They are also critical institutions in supporting local and regional development, and act as key anchor institutions underpinning place-making in many cities, towns and communities across the north. We welcome the questions posed by David Sweeney, Executive Chair of Research England, in his recent blog for WonkHE1. This joint response by N8 and YU represents a contribution to the important debate about the role of place in research and innovation policy, strategy and funding in the UK. Executive Summary: • Research capacity and funding is not sufficiently spatially distributed in the UK. This reinforces imbalances and inequalities in the UK economy, and is an opportunity cost for UK Productivity and R&D targets. • In order to address this, there needs to be a greater emphasis on place and developing regional R&I ecosystems, which engage partners in the public and private sectors, as well as local citizens; • Definitions of excellence should be reviewed reflecting value of collaborative research which is locally embedded and impactful. Conventional peer review methods, which are accustomed to traditional measures of excellence, may need to be reviewed for funding schemes for which other factors are also strategically important; • Programmes should not be one-size fits all, but informed by regional knowledge. The approach should be flexible and long-term; • To make transformational change, SIPF awards could usefully be significantly larger and longer in duration; • Building capacity and local knowledge could be supported by developing new place-based collaborative research models, disseminating knowledge and informing policy.
    [Show full text]
  • Independent Review of the Scottish Funding Council's Research
    Independent Review of the Scottish Funding Council’s Research Pooling Initiative Chaired by Professor Louise Heathwaite CBE FRSE Contents page Preface Executive summary 1. Introduction 2. The review process 3. Brief background to the Research Pooling Initiative 4. The evidence base 5. Evidence analysis 6. Conclusions and recommendations 7. List of advisory panel members 8. Appendices 2 Preface by Professor Louise Heathwaite CBE FRSE I was delighted to be asked by Mike Cantlay OBE (Chair of the Scottish Funding Council, SFC) and Professor Lesley Yellowlees CBE (Chair of SFC’s Research and Knowledge Exchange Committee, RKEC) to lead this independent review of the Research Pooling Initiative (RPI). Scotland’s major investment in, and long-term commitment to growing critical mass and driving collaboration across its core science disciplines was prescient and has been copied widely elsewhere. Since 2005, SFC has invested over £155m in eleven research pools, matched by over £330m from Scottish Universities and co-funding of almost £10m from the Office for Science & Technology and the Chief Scientist’s Office. Given the continued evolution of the research landscape in Scotland and the UK, now is a good time to evaluate whether the concept of research pooling remains fit for purpose. My remit was to undertake a high-level and summative analysis to establish the impact of SFC's investment in the pooling initiative on the Scottish research environment to date and to provide recommendations on the development of this and SFC’s future investment in research. I am hugely grateful to every member of my Advisory Panel for their valuable guidance and critical insight throughout the review process and particularly for their fortitude and good humour during the oral evidence sessions when the days were very long indeed.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report for 2018-19
    Yorkshire Universities 2018-19 Annual Report and Accounts yorkshireuniversities.ac.uk YorkshireUnis Reference and administrative details for the year ended 31 July 2019 Registered office: 22 Clarendon Place, Leeds, LS2 9JY Registered company number: 03467035 Registered charity number: 1109200 Independent examiner: Mark Heaton FCCA DChA KM Chartered Accountants 1st Floor Block C The Wharf Manchester Road Burnley Lancashire BB11 1JG Bankers: Unity Trust Bank plc Nine Brindley Place Birmingham West Midlands B1 2HB Cambridge & Counties Bank Charnwood Court 5B New Walk Leicester LE1 6TE Manchester Building Society 125 Portland Street Manchester M1 4QD CONTENTS Chair’s foreword .................................................................................................................... 1 Statement of trustees’ responsibilities ................................................................................... 2 Governance, structure and risk management ........................................................................ 3 Mission ................................................................................................................................. 5 Objectives and achievements ............................................................................................... 5 Future plans ........................................................................................................................ 10 Financial review .................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Making the Best Better
    MAKING THE BEST BETTER UK Research and Innovation More efficient and effective for the global economy Report for Department of Business, Innovation and Skills By Sarah Jackson On secondment from the N8 Research Partnership 30 March 2013 1 MAKING THE BEST BETTER UK Research and Innovation More efficient and effective for the global economy The purpose of this report is to document and analyse evidence of the efficiencies within the higher education research base. The evidence has been collected from existing reports and data, combined with new case studies. Providing recommendations for future efficiency savings is explicitly outside the scope of this work. Key highlights and conclusions The higher education sector is moving towards a ten year track record of delivering efficiencies, including headline savings of over £1.38bn over CSRs 2004 and 20071, and Research Councils delivering savings of £428m over the current CSR period. These efficiencies have been achieved using two key drivers: a. Increasing domestic and international competition b. Science ring fence, allowing reinvestment of savings to increase world class performance of universities. The evidence collected for this report shows a strong ten-year track record of institutions delivering both operational and productive efficiencies, which is improving research and teaching. This strong link between driving efficiencies and improving student experience and better research is increasing investment in skills, knowledge and human capital. Capital budgets are being utilised more effectively, primarily through creating clusters of excellence and sharing equipment. This is delivering state-of-the-art facilities, enabling new science and better equipment and expertise for business. The increased effectiveness of the system is delivering both greater outputs for science and research, and also greater impact in the global marketplace: generating new knowledge, leveraging private investment in R&D and increasing the quality of human capital.
    [Show full text]
  • South West England and South East Wales Science and Innovation Audit
    South West England and South East Wales Science and Innovation Audit Annex K: Resilience, Environment and Sustainability Theme Report A Science and Innovation Audit Report sponsored by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy K Annex K: Resilience, Environment and Sustainability Theme Report 1. Introduction The Resilience, Environment and Sustainability theme of the Audit has been undertaken to assess the opportunities for the region to enhance prosperity and resilience associated with climate and environmental change and sustainable development. Quotes from business, captured through an independently commissioned survey, highlight the essence of the theme: “new business models will be unlocked through future energy and environmental demands and concerns”, “the mood and the climate is think differently, do things differently, look for different opportunities”. This theme recognises the extensive, vibrant and internationally excellent capability, assets, and research in the region and builds on a broad environmental goods and services sector, alongside regional priority sectors in environmental futures, agri-food/tech, energy, digital, water, low carbon and high value manufacturing. Over a quarter of the UK’s major environmental research organisations have a base in the region and there are almost 2,000 scientists working in relevant areas. The total research expenditure on this theme in 2014-15 was £271m, and relevant university research activity is showing much stronger growth compared to the Russell Group. There are 25,000 enterprises in the region based in sectors relevant to the theme and 153,000 jobs. Employment has grown sixteen times faster than other sectors in the region. In Devon the concentration of environmental scientists is four times higher than the national average.
    [Show full text]
  • Enterprising Universities Using the Research Base to Add Value to Business
    Policy Report September 2010 Enterprising Universities Using the research base to add value to business 1100901_EnterprisingUniversities.indd00901_EnterprisingUniversities.indd A 009/09/20109/09/2010 115:025:02 The 1994 Group > The 1994 Group is established to promote excellence in university research and teaching. It represents 19 of the UK’s leading research-intensive, student focused universities. Around half of the top 20 universities in UK national league tables are members of the group. > Each member institution delivers an extremely high standard of education, demonstrating excellence in research, teaching and academic support, and provides learning in a research-rich community. > The 1994 Group counts amongst its members 12 of the top 20 universities in the Guardian University Guide 2011 league tables published on the 8th June 2010. 7 of the top 10 universities for student experience are 1994 Group Universities (2009 National Student Survey). In 17 major subject areas 1994 Group universities are the UK leaders achieving 1st place in their fi eld (THE RAE subject rankings 2008). 57% of the 1994 Group's research is rated 4* 'world- leading' or 3* 'internationally excellent' (RAE 2008, HEFCE). > The 1994 Group represents: University of Bath, Birkbeck University of London, Durham University, University of East Anglia, University of Essex, University of Exeter, Goldsmiths University of London, Institute of Education University of London, Royal Holloway University of London, Lancaster University, University of Leicester, Loughborough
    [Show full text]
  • The British Innovation Fund Investing in the Best of UK University Venturing
    The British Innovation Fund Investing in the Best of UK University Venturing For discussion purposes with Professional Investors only 2Q 2020 BRITISH INNOVATION FUND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Key Areas of Specialty: Agricultural Bio- Technologies technology The BIF has been backed by some of The BIF is managed in the leading local The British Innovation partnership with government pension Deep Tech Life Sciences Milltrust International LLP Fund (BIF) is an schemes in the and Milltrust Agricultural AIFMD-compliant United Kingdom patient capital venture Investments, and supported by an capital fund investing in cutting edge spin- Alternative Advisory team of Nano Tech investment specialists outs emanating from Protein and agricultural and leading UK university research. scientific experts. 2 INVESTMENT PREMISE “Exploration is the engine that drives innovation. Innovation drives economic growth.” - Edith Widder 3 INVESTMENT PREMISE A BRIEF HISTORY OF BRITISH INNOVATION Sir Isaac Newton, PRS 25 December 1642 – 20 March 1726 Sir Alexander Fleming, FRS FRSE FRCS English mathematician, physicist, astronomer, 6 August 1881 – 11 March 1955 theologian, and author widely recognised as one of the Scottish biologist, physician, micro-biologist, most influential scientists of all time and as a key figure and pharmacologist. Inventor of Penicillin. in the scientific revolution. Edward Jenner, FRS FRCPE FLS John Logie Baird, FRSE 17 May 1749 – 26 January 1823 13 August 1888 – 14 June 1946 English physician who was a contributor to the Scottish engineer and innovator. One of the inventors of development of the smallpox vaccine. the mechanical television. Michael Faraday, FRS 22 September 1791 – 25 August 1867 John Adrian Shepherd-Barron, OBE English scientist who contributed to the study 23 June 1925 – 15 May 2010 of electromagnetism and electrochemistry.
    [Show full text]
  • New Fonts Strand 5 Hudson Report Layout 1
    New Fonts Strand 5 Hudson Report:Layout 1 13/09/2011 09:09 Page a N8 Research Partnership The impacts of demographic change in the functional economies of the North of England Summary Report Ray Hudson Durham University with Lisa Buckner University of Leeds Tom Cannon University of Liverpool Alan Harding University of Manchester Kasia Kurowska Newcastle University Philip Rees University of Leeds New Fonts Strand 5 Hudson Report:Layout 1 13/09/2011 09:09 Page b New Fonts Strand 5 Hudson Report:Layout 1 13/09/2011 09:09 Page i N8 Research Partnership The impacts of demographic change in the functional economies of the North of England Summary Report Ray Hudson Durham University Contact author: Ray Hudson Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Partnerships and Engagement), Durham University, University Office, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP, UK Telephone: +44 (0)191 334 6045 Email: [email protected] New Fonts Strand 5 Hudson Report:Layout 1 13/09/2011 09:09 Page ii About the N8 The N8 is a group of the eight most research intensive universities in the North — Durham, Lancaster, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Sheffield and York. All N8 universities are ranked in the top 200 of the World University Rankings. Combined, the N8 universities have 125 “top 10” subject rankings in the UK (RAE 2008). The N8 partnership was created in 2007, establishing virtual research centres in Regenerative Medicine and Molecular Engineering. It was a novel way of creating a confluence of research assets and capabilities across the partnership, with sufficient scale and critical mass, to move on broader industrial and commercial opportunities.
    [Show full text]
  • SWW SIA Annexes
    South West England and South East Wales Science and Innovation Audit Annexes A–F Annex A: Consortium membership, governance and consultation Annex B: Universities, Colleges and Research Organisations Annex C: LEPs and Local Authorities within SIA area Annex D: Science Parks and Innovation Centres Annex E: Theme Rationale Annex F: LEP / Welsh Government Strategic Alignment A Science and Innovation Audit Report sponsored by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy A–F Annex A: Consortium membership, governance and consultation Consortium Membership The following organisations were members of the South West England and South East Wales Science and Innovation Audit consortium, and were consulted during the development of the Expression of Interest, and subsequently during the SIA process. Business Aardman General Dynamics UK AgustaWestland / Finmeccanica Gooch & Housego Airbus in the UK Goonhilly Earth Station Ltd. Airbus Defence & Space (formerly HiETA Technologies Ltd. Cassidian) Airbus Group Innovations UK Huawei Airbus Group Endeavr Wales Ltd IBM Global Business Services Andromeda Capital IQE plc BAE Systems Johnson Matthey plc BBC Oracle Boeing Defence UK Ltd. Ortho Clinical Diagnostics Bristol is Open Ltd. Renishaw Broadcom UK Rolls Royce Centre For Modelling and Simulation South West Water ClusterHQ Toshiba Research Cray Watershed EDF Energy R&D UK Centre Wavehub First Group plc LEPs Cornwall and Isles of Scilly LEP Swindon and Wiltshire LEP GFirst (Gloucestershire) LEP West of England LEP Heart of the South West
    [Show full text]
  • A CRITICAL PATH Securing the Future of Higher Education in England
    A CRITICAL PATH Securing the Future of Higher Education in England IPPR Commission on the Future of Higher Education 2013 1 IPPR RESEARCH STAFF Nick Pearce is director of IPPR. Rick Muir is associate director for public service reform at IPPR. Jonathan Clifton is a senior research fellow at IPPR. Annika Olsen is a researcher at IPPR. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Commissioners would like to thank Nick Pearce, Rick Muir, Jonathan Clifton and Annika Olsen for their help with researching and writing this report, and London Economics for modelling the higher education funding system. They would also like to thank those organisations and individuals who submitted evidence or agreed to be interviewed as part of this project. In particular, they would like to thank the staff and students who facilitated their learning visits to higher education institutions in Sheffield and Newcastle. They would also like to thank Jon Wilson, along with all those who organised and participated in the joint seminar series with King’s College London, and Marc Stears for his guidance in the early stages of the project. ABOUT IPPR IPPR, the Institute for Public Policy Research, is the UK’s leading progressive thinktank. We are an independent charitable organisation with more than 40 staff members, paid interns and visiting fellows. Our main office is in London, with IPPR North, IPPR’s dedicated thinktank for the North of England, operating out of offices in Newcastle and Manchester. The purpose of our work is to assist all those who want to create a society where every citizen lives a decent and fulfilled life, in reciprocal relationships with the people they care about.
    [Show full text]